liberal/conservative churches

[Calvinbeza]

Why some denominations, and church families like congregational churches are one of the main supporters of LGBT people in the church as ministers, and elders. In the UCC about 50% of their churches are Open and Affirming. Even the most biblical Conservative Congregational Christian Churches are fairly liberal compared to the OPC, Reformed Church in the US, etc.

For example in the Reformed churches are liberals moderate like CRC and conservatives like RCUS.

 

[yeutter]

Congregational Churches tend to not be bound by a confessional standard. Very few adhere to the Savoy Confession. Subscription to Confessional Standards keep Churches moored to the truth.

 

[arapahoepark]

Are you asking a qestion or stating a fact?
If you're asking why it is because they abandon the authority the Bible to make their beliefs more platable to non believers to gain membership. It has backfired miserably as history shows.
Once the authority of the Bible is gone, things like women's ordination come in. It is absolutely clear that there is no women's ordination. One can argue about other doctrine that may seem ambiguous but men and women's roles are not and are in an area of application. That is hard to argue against but, they do by rejecting its authority in that place. So the authority of the unravels like a piece of old string. Other doctrines are inevitably touched and tampered with.
As with all heresy, it argues for tolerance, then equality and then extermination of other views one phase one and two are completed.
That is basically the history of the mainline church of the twentieth century in a nutshell.

 

[DMcFadden]

I was ruminating on this topic the other day. The seven mainline denoms (ABCUSA, Disciples, ELCA, UMC, PCUSA, TEC, UCC) have been forgone conclusions for some time. The REAL problem is the encroachment of similar thinking into the broad evangelical churches.

My seminary days (back when buggies were the norm? in the mid '70s) saw the publication of Paul Jewett's Man as Male and Female, arguing that Paul was "wrong" in 1 Tim 2 and that we did not need to feel constrained by his errors.

Having "heard it all" in Pasadena in a "leading indicator" seminary for progressive trends among evangelicals, it has not surprised me to watch the spread of the ideology. But, the rationalistic tendency of "progressive" evangelicals to "explain away" clear texts of Scripture because they run counter to the current Zeitgeist is a two edged sword with some pretty unacceptable consequences. It results in untethering doctrine from the source of doctrine in a way that allows for pretty much anything to be defended as acceptable.

You know, the examples of women exercising public roles in both testaments do not necessarily contradict the explicit instructions by Paul regarding church order in 1 Cor (yes I accept the text as legitimate) and 1 Timothy. The complementarian view might not be easy to implement or be in sync with the culture, but the hermeneutic being promulgated by so many evangelicals I hear these days will likely result in the vitiation of a number of core Christian doctrines over the next decades.

Besides, the whole "has God really said" type of argument ended rather badly in Gen 3. I do not expect it to fare any better today.